Seattle Hacker Catches Cops Who Hid Arrest Tapes 597
An anonymous reader writes "In 2008, the Seattle Police illegally arrested security consultant Eric Rachner for refusing to show ID. After Rachner filed a formal complaint, he was prosecuted for obstructing, and the police claimed that videos of the arrest were unavailable — until Rachner's research uncovered proof that the police had the videos all along." It's an interesting story of how he figured out how the system in use by Seattle police automatically tracks deletion, copying, or other uses of the recorded stream.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More too this story methinks (Score:1, Informative)
He didn't slice the shot. RTFA.
FTA "Marcus Johnson of Los Angeles apologetically admitted in an interview that he sliced the ball that hit the victim. Police never detained or identified him, but he and others said Johnson was "in the thick of things" when police arrived."
Exaggeration (Score:3, Informative)
This douchebag was wandering around with a group of thirty or so people, drunkenly smacking people in the face with foam golf balls and then heckling them. I'm not sying the cops were right, they weren't, but this guy is no hero.
If you read the article, it says one person hit a passerby. Not the guy in question here. In fact, it says he did not even resemble the one who had hit the passerby with the foam ball.
"Stop and identify" statute (Score:5, Informative)
According to Wikipedia, Washington does not have a "stop and identify" statute [wikimedia.org]. So, unless there's other relevant legislation, no. You don't.
Re:Show ID (Score:1, Informative)
If an officer of the law requests to see your ID, you must present it.
You are factually incorrect. You are not required to produce any form of ID on demand in the United States. The worst anyone can do is deny you entry or purchase, if it is based on ID or ID as proof of age/residency/etc/. The exception would be driving a motor vehicle on public roads, where you are required to be licensed and show proof on demand.
There is nothing to lobby your Representative about, because this isn't against any law.
Re:Show ID (Score:3, Informative)
If an officer of the law requests to see your ID, you must present it.
[citation needed]
Seattle cops don't like video (Score:2, Informative)
Because they like to beat up 15 year old girls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl67FmVRjYs
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/401779_schene28.html
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/01/former_deputy_paul_schene_says.php
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:2, Informative)
Cops in the US can usually claim Sovereign Immunity.
Are you sure about that? IMNAL but I believe that sovereign immunity in the United States [wikipedia.org] is limited to the Federal and state governments.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:1, Informative)
Anyone interested can ask their local ACLU about the ID laws in their state.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, that doesn't matter. Even if he was in fact engaged in criminal activity, that doesn't nullify his civil rights. You can argue about how exactly violation of civil rights shuld be treated. You can argue about how exactly a liar covering for someone who violates civil rights should be treated. There is no validity to arguing about the behavior of the person whose rights were violated, however. If he was doing something criminal, then that makes police interferance with his rights even worse - because that would mean he'd likely have been able to walk away from criminal charges.
Second, your portrayal of his behavior does not match the facts presented. They were not "drunkenly smacking people in the face with foam golf balls". They were drunkenly playing with foam golf balls, and a person (which is different from "people") was accidentally hit (by someone who was not amongh those arrested).
Moreover, your claim that they hecked the "people" they hit requires proof. The police report said they were heckling the person that was hit, but it does not clarify what this means. The person who was hit with the ball was "only mad at the one guy" who hit the ball, which doesn't seem like it would be the case if any mass heckling of the sort you're portraying were going on. In fact, the person hit by the ball, based on his quotes, appears to agree that the police response wasn't justified.
Re:A few bad apples (Score:4, Informative)
Did you miss the part where the guy in the article spent half a year fighting the charges before the prosecutor simply dropped them?
There was a lot of dishonesty going on, more than "oh you can't see the evidence".
Re:There's a better charge.. (Score:0, Informative)
Spelling: that's "bona fide", not "bonifide".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bona+fide [merriam-webster.com]
No disagreement on your main point.
Re:Carefully parsed language (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry to self-reply, but I want to expand on this statement. It should be noted that, in a number of states, the person wouldn't even have the right to refuse to present ID. Because of the 911 call and accusation of assault, the police officer's dealings with the group of drunks would have qualified as a Terry stop [wikipedia.org]. In 24 states [wikipedia.org], there are Stop and Identify statutes, which allow police to demand identification during a Terry stop.
Washington is not one of those states, so the police officer did not have the authority to hold anyone for failing to provide identification. But, I just wanted to add to my above post, noting that the constitutionality of the actions taken in this case is not uniform across the entire US, before some Slashdotter got a creative idea about what to do next time they're dealing with a police officer.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Informative)
Not most states, only 24 have stop & identify statutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop_and_identify.E2.80.9D_statutes [wikipedia.org]
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Informative)
Not sovereign, but qualified immunity. They can and do lose that protection when they violate clearly established conduct:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q063.htm [lectlaw.com]
The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rule of qualified immunity " `provides ample support to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494-95 (1991) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). "Therefore, regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not `clearly established' or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful." Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). Furthermore, "[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; .. . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Show ID (Score:5, Informative)
You are factually incorrect. You are not required to produce any form of ID on demand in the United States
You are also factually incorrect. "Stop and Identify" laws vary by state [wikipedia.org].
Not in Washington (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More too this story methinks (Score:3, Informative)
I think that the video demonstrates that the cop may have very well believed that his request was legal, but I hardly think refusing to comply with his actually illegal request means that the subject was to blame in any way. They were quite civil until he refused to produce ID. Then the cop escalates first, bolstered by his ignorant beliefs about his authority.
The case alluded to in the article is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada [wikipedia.org], in which the supreme court ruled that Nevada's stop and identify law, which requires only that someone suspected of a crime give his or her name, was constitutional. It was 7-2, with Stevens and Breyer dissenting. In that case, there was a Nevada law explicitly allowing a request for identification (and requiring a response), a situation which does not obtain in Washington.
Let us consider another example. At first glance, New York's [onecle.com] law on this seems particularly heinous, allowing that an officer "may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his conduct." It doesn't actually say whether the subject is required to respond, however. In fact, New York's law merely limits the scope of questioning to which an officer may subject a suspect before arrest. If other probable cause to arrest is not found, refusal to answer those questions is not grounds.
So, in New York and most states, you really can refuse to answer police questions. That doesn't make you a "douchebag." On the contrary, because Rachner had been following his state court decisions, he was able to upgrade himself from "drunken nerfball golfer" to "American Hero."
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Informative)
Near the end, you can hear him carefully questioning the officer to make sure that he was in fact being arrested only for the refusal to show ID:
Rachner: "If I were to pull out my ID right now, would you let me go with no further questions?"
Cop: "I would have, but you're already under arrest."
Rachner was clearly making sure it was on the record that he was being arrested for refusal to show ID, and for no other reason, so they wouldn't able to go back and say "oh but we were arresting him for something else too, so it wasn't an illegal arrest". That supports what you inferred: he was making a conscious choice to let them arrest him so he could fight it later in court.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Informative)
The article points out that this already happened. The bigger part of the story is, not only did they improperly arrest him, but when his lawyer made a discovery request for the tapes of the arrest they claimed they were deleted until he dug through a system spec included in a purchasing report and pointed out that they were in fact not deletable in the way they claimed. Now he gets to raise holy hell about the arrest AND the failed cover up of the tapes.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, here are some contries where they don't give a shit about your passport (from personal experience):
- Poland
- Czech republic
- Norway
- Australia
- New Zealand
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Informative)
I'll say it very slowly.
It
does
not
matter
if
the
accused
is
a
good
or
bad
guy.
It
is
completely
irrelevant.
Got it? You're attacking someone who was wrongfully arrested and then prevented from seeing exculpatory evidence. The story is that he happened to have the smarts to discover and request the log file associated with that evidence. The story is that the police department lied about the continued existence of the video and audio recordings.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Informative)
...who fail to show proper respect for the authority that police have over you...
Proper respect is one thing. What you are describing is something else, entirely.
When a police officer tells you to do something, you do it. It is that simple.
Holy crap. Are you for real, or are you just trolling? I am an honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizen, but there is no way on God's green earth that I will ever just do something simply because someone else tells me to. I will respect authority, but when authority conflicts with either 1) what my conscience dictates or 2) what the law requires of me, authority loses. Period. "It is that simple."
Police officers will protect you, if you stop getting in their way.
No, they won't. Case in point: I had a friend who managed a storage facility. Unfortunately, it turned out that a couple of his clients were gang members who owed back rent. They came to claim their property, and he told them "Not until you pay the back rent you owe." They then threatened to return with some of their friends and take their property back, and threatened to shoot my friend if he tried to stop them. My friend called the local P.D., who told him they couldn't help him unless the gang members actually made good on their threat. My friend then asked if they could at least patrol the area a little more heavily than usual, and again, the P.D. declined. You see, there was a sled dog event downtown, and they local police officers were busy directing traffic for the event.* The P.D. are not there to protect you. They are there to arrest the suspects after a crime has been committed.
*02/1999, IIRC, Anchorage, Alaska
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Informative)
Please actually take the time to read the statutes. The parent stated "in most states you can be required to state your name."
Note that that is far from true, generally a crime is required. The standard is very similar to Terry v. Ohio:
Alabama - A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated city or town within the limits of the county or any highway patrolman or state trooper may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.
Arizona - A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
Colorado - 1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.
etc
The important part is that in most states you cannot be compelled to state your name unless it is under circumstances that have clearly articuable facts that a reasonable person would believe indicate imminent criminal behavior.
Re:Next step on this drama: (Score:1, Informative)
If you read the article (or if the person who made the article summary didn't write it in such a misleading manner) you'd know that he didn't 'hack' anything. He read the technical specifications for how the system works (by getting the documents from the systems manufacturer), found out that it kept a log of all transactions and requested the log. The log showed that the video had not been deleted, and the video was actually included WITH the log.
Re:He should have gone to jail. (Score:1, Informative)
No, you are a tool for jumping to conclusions.
Drinking != drunk.
If you listen to the freaking audio you can hear the officer talking with one of the participants and making mention that this was the first time that there had been any trouble with this group, which suggests that they'd been doing this for a while. Also, if you listen to the audio you can pretty readily tell that the people there were acting in an appropriate manner. Hell, the officer even made a statement to one of the participants about being able to pick Rachner up at the precinct depending on if he makes it into court that night or not. That would imply that the officer believed his friend was sober enough to be driving.
The only one acting like a douchebag was the person who hit the golf ball and laughed when it hit the guy in the face (although I'd have laughed as well, while 100% sober, I'd also have the common decency to apologize to the person afterwards).
And what does supporting marijuana or being a vegan have to do with anything? I support marijuana even though I don't use it, and being a vegan is a lifestyle choice that has absolutely no impact on my meat-eating lifestyle so I fail to see your point.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Informative)
"obstruction of justice" is one of those "bad laws". It's a catch-all, that any cop with an agenda can twist to make whatever you happen to be doing, illegal. "Failure to obey an officer of the law" is another good one. With that particular gem, they basically can tell you to do practically anything (short of something unconstitutional) and if you don't do it, bam, failure to obey, cuff 'im Dano.
Laws like that were passed quite possibly in good faith, to give an officer the ability to stop somthing that clearly SHOULD be illegal but that there wasn't a law on the books at the time. It shifts the job of the officer from enforcing the law to creating and interpreting it. Senators create laws. Juries and judges interpret laws. Officers enforce laws. When you create a law that permits or requires the officer to interpret it, it's a Bad Law. And if you can't figure out a way to word a law to make only exactly what you want to be judged illegal, that's no excuse for creating a Bad Law. Either word it to give more benefit of the doubt, or DON'T make it in the first place.
Down low on Seattle (Score:3, Informative)
First, when one examines the typical city budget (in this case Seattle) you will note millions of dollars in a miscellanous account line; this is for all those damages paid out in lawsuits against the Seattle Police, the Seattle Utilities departments.
Secondly, I have long held that Cleve Stockmeyer is, hands down, the finest attorney in the Northwest. He was also the finest board member on the Seattle Monorail Project which, if Seattle wasn't even more riddled with corruption than even San Diego, we would actually have a city-wide monorail today, instead of continuing to be fleeced with millions of dollars in payouts due to the highly-paid Seattle police department and Seattle utilities people.
Re:Freedom vs. Convenience. (Score:3, Informative)
Custody for Rachner lasted two hours, not days, but a charge was leveled against him in Seattle Municipal Court for obstructing a public officer. Controversial laws known as obstruction, "stop and frisk" and "stop and identify" statutes have been abused in other cities like New York, studies and news stories show. An obstruction case cited in a 2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer investigation ended with a federal jury hitting Seattle police with a six-figure penalty.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:4, Informative)
When you create a law that permits or requires the officer to interpret it, it's a Bad Law. And if you can't figure out a way to word a law to make only exactly what you want to be judged illegal, that's no excuse for creating a Bad Law.
Amen.
Someone with mod points, please spend them on the parent.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Informative)
Stupid travel advice? (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, that's the stupidest bit of travel advice I've ever heard.
Never walk around with your passport when you don't have to. Leave it locked in the hotel safe, take a photocopy if you need it.
Now I've been able to walk around unharrased without my passport in every nation I've been to, including but not limited to:
- Thailand
- Malaysia
- Philippines
- Singapore
- New Zealand
- Cambodia
- Vietnam
- China
- Indonesia
BTW, I'm an Australian.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Informative)
So what? I mean, really, so-fucking-what? The illegal problem is of epidemic proportions here. I've experienced it first hand on numerous occasions; just last month I was at the hospital with my grandmother and withing 10 minutes, 2 separate people came into the emergency room with no ID (no Drivers license, no state ID, no green card, nothing) and no insurance so they get treated on the state's dime and not even a billing address to send a bill.
The feds are clearly too engrossed in courting a potential major voting block to do anything about it. I say good job to the AZ legislature. It's really quite simple; if someone commits a crime, breaks a traffic law, etc they need to provide ID or they get their info run to see if they're legal. This applies to everybody. Now obviously, the majority of illegals will be Mexican or Central American in origin: It's not like we have a bunch of illegal Canadian's down here, eh, but that doesn't make it racist in any way shape or form.
I'll save you the trouble of searching the internet for the bill. Here it is, it's not that long: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf [azleg.gov] I don't see anything in there about Mexicans, do you?
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Informative)
I dare you to go to any foreign country and walk around without your passport.
Try Europe. After a rather gruelling entrance exam at Heathrow Airport (I'd just spent a month and a half in Thailand, I looked like a hippie, I was possibly still drunk from the free booze on the plane flight, and I couldn't remember the address I was staying at) I then proceeded to travel overland all the way to Amsterdam via Paris and virtually every city in southern Germany. I had to use my passport exactly once and that was while bluffing my way into a World Cup match. I actually spent ten minutes wandering around the train station in Paris after getting off the chunnel train, trying to find someone to show my passport so I could get it stamped, before being told not to bother.
Just a note (Score:5, Informative)
OK, I was actually there. Not, "I heard this from a guy." I mean, I'm Dan Kaminsky, who's named in the article.
This was kind of a silly situation. One of the guys in our group hit the ball and it sort of sailed into this guy's face. It's a styrofoam ball, the maximum speed of those things is maybe ten miles an hour. It's actually slower than a Nerf ball.
Anyway, the guy who actually hit the thing was sort of an awkward nerd, and laughed about it nervously. You know in the article when the guy's like, it was just one guy? That's because it was just him. There was certainly no mob taunting.
Really, this was a bunch of nerds and burners. There was no damage going on, just general silliness and large scale commerce with institutions that were each contacted in advance and specially staffed to seat all of us. I don't think it'll happen again, and that's sort of sad. Urban golf was a lot of fun for everyone.
Re:A few bad apples (Score:1, Informative)
They denied the request, stalled the request until the 90 days were up, then lied about them being destroyed until finally being proved wrong (and caught in a lie). THAT is the problem. Using an excuse of stupidity for something they deal with all the time is not an excuse at all.
As for trying to get a bunch of drunk guys off the streets comment; This was the final hole of the game and ended at that bar. There were only several dozen people still involved on a Saturday night on Pike and I think Belmont (very busy area with plenty of drunk people all ready) so this wasn't some type of bazaar situation with some drunk people around, the area was all ready filled with drunk people.
As for the multiple arrests for a single guy accidentally hitting someone in the head with a piece of foam the person who did it was wearing a kilt, bright orange hair and a golfers hat. Eric who was arrested has a shaven head and leather jacket. The other people arrested didn't come close to matching his description. He obviously wasn't a suspect (and wasn't even around from what I remember and was only walking by) yet because he was denying these cops their ability to flex their power over him and didn't give in was the only reason he was arrested.
These cops were very dishonest in arresting him. The cops they were with were dishonest for trying to hide the facts about the case. They have all lied and obstructed justice themselves which is the most ironic part of this case at this point.
O and I was at the event when this occurred, I was involved with helping run it so I know quite a few facts about was has happened.